Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 14, 2013, 8:32 p.m. EST by toobighasfailed
(117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I've been trying to build a network of people interested in boycotting Wall Street banks and calling to break them up. It's been time-consuming, but it'll be worth it if it happens, since breaking up the banks "should be the Holy Grail of activist goals," as Matt Taibbi says.

The thing is, this goal is totally achievable. There's a huge group of experts coming around to the idea that TBTF needs to end (see this growing list: http://www.switchyourbank.org/tbtf). It'll just take a bigger public outcry, and it could happen. If more Occupiers set their minds to achieve this Holy Grail of activist goals, we'd be a force to be reckoned with, one that's on the mainstream map again.

I'd like to know who's interested in joining this network and what ideas you have for how we could succeed.

24 Comments

This thread has been good so far, but I'm still unsure about which organization/people is interested in achieving the Holy Grail of activist goals. It's something we could achieve, with focus. Who is interested?

I totally agree. What current networks are best for promoting this idea? It seems like MoveYourMoney has died down, unfortunately. It's essential that this movement stay alive because currently more customers are switching to Bank of America than from Bank of America.

Regarding my last reply, this is one of my recent replies which should help understand the 99% Conglomerate:

"It will be very easy to get the wrong impression about what's going on here and intentions. I often have to repeat responses to like-minded pessimists, so I linked the Topic Refetences post to common thoughts (mostly for my benefit).

Feel free to ask questions or criticize anything.

I'm not sure what you mean by "sell to a conglomerate".

There are no plans for commune-type structure or profit sharing. If a financial institution does develop, it will be much further down the road. There are currently no plans to go there yet, though I wouldn't wish to avoid it if the conglomerate's subsidiary owners choose that path."

The links you're sharing are really interesting, and I like the basic concept a lot, though I'm still unsure what the exact implications of the movement are. I'll keep my eye on it to see what develops. Thanks for the link!

I signed up for it. Eventually SwitchYourBank.org plans to network small lenders and provide a service for them as a way to cut the Wall Street banks off at the knees. We're in beta mode now, just feeling out the direction to take, but it'll be good to part of the Conglomerate in case things take off. Thanks!

Yes, very simple. If I had some advice it would be to give more explanation about the purpose of the Conglomerate. Is it to build a network of likeminded people? That's a good goal, if so. We need a better network because the network in the megabanks/government is so massive.

What modern country has existed without one? Or what would a country without a banking system look like? A bunch of co-ops? I'd have no problem with a bunch of co-ops, but eliminating all banking completely is shortsighted. Even Wall Street firms have some utility. They've just increasingly lost sight of providing that utility.

I think you have been slightly deceived and that deception causes you to lose points with the public at large.

The banks are too big to shrink. But by using the slogan..."Too big to fail", it scares people into being against your idea because it sounds like you are proposing that people with savings in those banks could lose them.

Unending growth is the elixer of the ultra wealthy. Yes, they don't mind if you have a modicum of comfort, as long as their wealth is always growing.

"Too big to fail" doesn't imply that people with savings in Wall Street firms will lose their money. TBTF is saying that these banks will be bailed out again. That is, they're so big Congress and the Fed will not let them go bankrupt for fear of destroying the entire economy.

And the megabanks are not too big to shrink. We did it in 1933 with the Glass-Steagall Act, and we can do it again. It wouldn't be terribly difficult—far less difficult than another global financial crisis.